N.D.Tex.: Video camera in pretrial detainee’s cell that showed the toilet was reasonable

“Ellis alleges that the placement of cameras in his cell that could record the toilet violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy and constituted a state tort of invasion of privacy. ECF No. 19 at 19-22. But a pretrial detainee ‘does not have an expectation of privacy in his cell,’ so Ellis cannot claim an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment or a claim for invasion of privacy under state law. … Thus, [U.S.D.] Judge O’Connor should dismiss these claims with prejudice.” Ellis v. City of White Settlement, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227672 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226436 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2023).

2254 petitioner had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his search claim in state court, and there was no showing of an “unconscionable breakdown” of procedure against it. Roybal v. Schnell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227221 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2023).*

Defendant’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim. Framed under 2255 as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, it fails on the merits of the search. Jamison v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227409 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2023).* Similarly, defendant’s Alford plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim. State v. Veley, 2023-Ohio-4682, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4494 (6th Dist. Dec. 21, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Prison and jail searches, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.